↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of self-reported line drawings of the modified Beighton score for the assessment of generalised joint hypermobility

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of self-reported line drawings of the modified Beighton score for the assessment of generalised joint hypermobility
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0464-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dale J. Cooper, Brigitte E. Scammell, Mark E. Batt, Debbie Palmer

Abstract

The impracticalities and comparative expense of carrying out a clinical assessment is an obstacle in many large epidemiological studies. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a series of electronic self-reported line drawing instruments based on the modified Beighton scoring system for the assessment of self-reported generalised joint hypermobility. Five sets of line drawings were created to depict the 9-point Beighton score criteria. Each instrument consisted of an explanatory question whereby participants were asked to select the line drawing which best represented their joints. Fifty participants completed the self-report online instrument on two occasions, before attending a clinical assessment. A blinded expert clinical observer then assessed participants' on two occasions, using a standardised goniometry measurement protocol. Validity of the instrument was assessed by participant-observer agreement and reliability by participant repeatability and observer repeatability using unweighted Cohen's kappa (k). Validity and reliability were assessed for each item in the self-reported instrument separately, and for the sum of the total scores. An aggregate score for generalised joint hypermobility was determined based on a Beighton score of 4 or more out of 9. Observer-repeatability between the two clinical assessments demonstrated perfect agreement (k 1.00; 95% CI 1.00, 1.00). Self-reported participant-repeatability was lower but it was still excellent (k 0.91; 95% CI 0.74, 1.00). The participant-observer agreement was excellent (k 0.96; 95% CI 0.87, 1.00). Validity was excellent for the self-report instrument, with a good sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.81, 0.91) and excellent specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98, 1.00). The self-reported instrument provides a valid and reliable assessment of the presence of generalised joint hypermobility and may have practical use in epidemiological studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Sports and Recreations 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,449,410
of 25,497,142 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#896
of 2,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,510
of 451,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#19
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,497,142 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.